As usual, an interesting mish-mash. Much of it is standard tp, though often worded in unusual ways. Some of it is outdated tp, sometimes presented as innovations. Other pieces are changes which no one else seems to have presented and which are given no rationale, even though they look to have bad results in the long run or do not appear to be very in keeping with tp generally. And some pieces are very good innovations that deserve serious consideration (or are so obvious when proposed as to not even need consideration). This is just a set of special cases of various sorts, nothing like a complete grammar. But it can be interspersed in any grammar to modify it once the basics are set. I don't think it can be seriously proposed as a new dialect of tp, but it is a platform agains which various dialects can be tested.

Right, every version of tp has an obligatory deletion rule for 'li' after 'mi' and 'sina' alone. This is a very low-level rule, barely above phonology and well below fusion.

'namako' is a little pejorative (“superfluous, excessive”) but here apparently just means “added to the basics” although I am not too sure what those basics are here. So, yes, the dropping of 'pi' before 'nanpa n' is a change, though it preceded Sonja's book (but may have come from her by other means).

'apeja' happily never got much traction and was never used . It means “shameful” and “shaming”, both very unkind notions. 'poka' as a prepositions hardly qualifies and is still the most common form, even though Sonja, who advocated the prepositional use originally, has now gone back to the (generally) spatial usage. She is not generally followed in this (nearly ten years' usage goes against it).

'luka e' meaning “touch” is standard, though not much used, so doesn't count as a fun – or crazy – change. So it is hard to see what these various sections rally mean, except from the point of view of someone who has very little idea what is happening in tp and so has formed these tiers in his mind.

'mute nimi' is not an ideal expression for “sentence”, but works.

The restriction that sentences with 'mi' or 'sina' as subject but different predicates cannot fuse is based on a misplacement of the 'li' deletion rule, which is after, not before fusion.

The description of the Direct Object case is muddled. It is when everything up to the 'e' is the same that fusion can occur, with all that same stuff at the start an the two different DOs in order , each with its own 'e'. The example given is correct, though the middle step, while possible, is not strictly necessary. A e B + A e C => A e B e C

The rule about 'kute' after 'o' is nice, since it ties the vocative and imperative functions together in a way that is not clear from cases. The rule for 'sina' is standard and ties imperatives to the intended hearer nicely.

The rule involving 'tawa pona o lon' is doubly confusing. Presumably it is taking the optative version of internal 'o', but that has not been touched on and is not standard, though Sonja seems to use it sometimes. Given that, one would expect 'tawa o pona' “May the trip be good” rather than the strange 'lon'. However, it does suggest some connections between optatives and fragments as interjections. This needs some further examination,

'pi' is always a mare's nest, but here the suggestion is that every modifier has a 'pi' but it is dropped before single words (rather than the easier form that 'pi' is added before modifiers of more than one word). The restriction to nouns (or whatever class is here called nouns) is obviously wrong, since the example given is of an adjective, 'pona'. It does become a modifier ('nimi monsi') so maybe 'nimi lawa' means something other than “noun” (“head word of a phrase” say, but then 'pona' still doesn't fit). Muddled, but getting to the right rule backwards.

The explanation for 'pilin pona' is interesting, but there is no paper trail to suggest that it is correct, as opposed to just being a calque (and a sloppy one) from English. 'lon' does tend to disappear in the move from the PP slot to the 'la' slot, though it doesn't always and some other prepositions do as well, on occasion. This seems to be optional and situational. The case of 'lon ni', as presented is hard, since the original form given is not grammatical, and it is hard to see what “here” is doing there anyhow.

Yes indefinite DOs are often dropped and one can more specific for verbs, where the generic DO has the same name, so 'moku e moku' => 'moku'. And so on.

Just how 'toki' “language” comes from 'toki' “say” is not clear. It is irregular. But 'ijo toki' doesn't seem to help.

The rule about 'ijo' is correct, except for 1. emphasis and 2. 'ijo ni' as a replacement for 'ona' in noun-rich contexts. (The example shows the 'pi' in effect.)

Quotations are always a bone of contention. This discussion doesn't help much. In all but the last case, it is not clear what the quote (or, the 'nimi') are doing there in the first place. This seems to be the opposite of the usual confusion of word and things, not taking the word for the thing, but the thing for the word. It ends up right, but there is no reason to think it got there by this route rather than directly.

The first case mixes two patterns. On the one hand, 'jan Isa li toki e ni: “...”' (maybe with 'nimi' to indicate direct quotation), where the DO is deictic, pointing to the following display. On the other, 'jan Isa li toki e nimi “...”',where the DO is a proper (quotation) name of a bit of text with its required generic noun. Both are proper.

[I ignore the 'pi nanpa wan', etc. I have been warned.] Well, of course, the second sentence is not the DO of the first, but it is indicated by that DO in a way that makes such talk at least intelligible. But the crucial point is that the subject of the two sentences is the same. And, of course, that the verb of the first sentence is of the right sort, a modal. If the subjects are different, we have other patterns.

Neither of the next internal etymolologies makes a lot of sense, since they do not start with likely things to say. But they do end with Sonja's vocabulary choices.

['palisa' for transitive is opaque.] But the description of the causative sense of non-verbs is accurate. I'm not sure what the second case does, but I don't use 'kama' for “start”.

The claim about 'awen' is true of just about anything: you can leave it out if you don't mind changing what you way.

“but prepositions can't have an auxiliary verb” I don't see why not, since nouns and adjectives can, but the classes here are different. I think this mean that we must analyze 'awen lon tomo' as modal + verb + noun. But then we are stuck with how the noun fits in, unless 'lon' is a preposition after all.

Another section on fragments/interjections. Basically correct as far as it goes. (The form of questions is one no one uses, so far as I can tell.)

So, this report of the common core of tp seems not very common and ranges far from the core.

I changed the wording for describing word order. I previously used the words "sinpin"/"monsi", whereas now I use "kama"/"pini" for "following"/"preceding" and "lon kama"/"lon pini" for "before"/"after" ("at the beginning"/"at the end").

Well, I am not sure that changing from spatial to temporal definitions is an improvement (I find the temporal more confusing somehow), as long as they are fixed names, their content is not to significant. I do find the description around 'li' confusing, as part of my usual problem of just how to read 'kama' (and 'pini', I suppose, although the corresponding bit about 'e' looks fine).